Wednesday, May 26, 2004

(From Atrios) The New York Time is fessing up in some cases to giving information provided by Iraqi exiles more credibility in the ramp up to the war than they should have, and not independently confirming that information which, in hindsight they should have recognized as being biased.

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves… we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

They also admit subsequent burial of information in back pages that came to light afterwards that appeared to contradict that information – when it should have been given more prominence.

Wellsprings

Babbles

River Banks

FCC Disclaimer: I receive no compensation at all for any of the text links in the sidebar unless they're noted as an "Ad by Google". I do receive commission if you order after clicking on any of the non-charitable graphic ads in the sidebar and some of the product/website links in blog posts themselves (which will be so noted in posts after Dec. 1)

"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters." — Norman Maclean